>> good evening, welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. we will begin by taking the roll. commissioner studley. >> here. >> hayon. >> here. >> renne. >> here. >> commissioner liu has an excused absence. the first item on the agenda are items appearing or not appearing

on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction. >> good evening, i am larry bush, i write for city report. earlier this month i asked for the staff to provide a list of those people that have not filed their form 7. i have that list for you now. this is about 30 san francisco officials by the end of august had not filed form 700. some people are including vice chair of development authority as well as all three members of the bond oversight committee. which as you know is the committee that monitors several billion dollars in funding. when i asked what actions had been taken to provide fines or what have you for people that not filed. that are due on april 1. i was told in writing that due

to a lack of resources, there were no fine letters going out this year, and none had gone out last year. i talked to the fcpc, and they said they had fined some san francisco officials themselves for failing to file. some of the same people who had not filed last year, still have not filed this year. i think that since i didn't see any mention of this in the executive director's report. it's worth the public being aware of the fact there is this level of noncompliance of the state law and should be a policy of the commission for that provision. that's one thing. and the other thing i wanted to point out is that the agenda for tonight did not include the minutes. just said that you were going to

vote for the minutes. it would be nice if you could put that to the next meeting for those of us who have not seen those have a period to comment. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner hur and ethic commissioners. i am troubled that you scheduled my two cases on today's agenda. it's unethical for the ethics commission to even decide a case involving your own executive director. and the whole case should have been transferred to another jurisdiction. not just for developing a recommendation. but for holding any sort of public hearing on the matter.

mr. chatfield, when he transferred my case to san jose. noted in the cover mail, quote, the ethic's commission regularly handles cases for the sunshine force act. and however cannot be (inaudible) as executive director is the named respondent in both claims, end quote. it should be argued that the ethics commission committed by mr. chatfield that it cannot hear any part of either of my cases. whether to dismiss the complaints or calendar a complaint on the full hearing of the merits. your agenda to indicate that the commission is going to deliberate this case is a pure conflict of interest. there are others.

formerally task force member renne has recused himself when hearing richard mou case, because mr. mou had a case against mr. renne's wife. and similarly mr. renne's wife has been in several cases of laguna honda hospital. and her refusal to release form 990 tax statements. at the least mr. renne should follow the lead and recuse himself from this discussion. but what i am asking you is to take this off of your calendar [buzzer] and transfer the cases to

another jurisdiction. so that there is not perceived or real conflict of interest. thank you. >> i am allen grossman. the commission and its vast decisions and actions must set the standard of ethical behavior. and conduct expected for those in san francisco. and your behavior is in the commission by the san francisco voters. two items task the commission and executive director meet the standard they should exemplify.

first one is for the handling of complaints for the sunshine ordinance. this is the first two submitted to the task force for review and comment. this one five months after your april joint meeting was not. you may not be aware that the task force has been unable to conduct business for four months because of lack of a handicap member and canceled their may meeting. and then appointed six new members, and since may the task force member has been held up by the board. does a nonfunctional task force that does not provide any input meet the standard of ethical

behavior. the other is mr. shaw's case. the agenda says that this commission will deliberate the san jose attorney office recommendation regarding the complaints. and stated that the letter of mr. chadfield that the commission regularly handles the cases but cannot adjudicate the matters as a named commissioner is cited in the case. who decided that a commissioner hearing against its own executive director for violation of law was not inconsistent with the commission's standard of ethical behavior. thank you. >> good evening, you are on item 2. >> item 2, yes. >> great, thank you.

this is for legal counsel, this is for the chair. i don't have any other copies. i am going to direct my question, my statements specifically. by the way i am bruce wolf from the past vice chair of the sunshine ordinance task force. i want to draw your attention to items 6 and 7 on your agenda. regarding the closed session. i believe they are posted incorrectly. and quote and refer to the brown act. that's the basis of the sunshine ordinance. you have the opportunity to meet in closed session to meet with legal counsel to sddetermine if you should meet in further closed session if you are party to particular litigation. but you must state on the agenda what the item is about. and the charter cannot trump that.

so i have listed the items of the statutes of the brown act in order based upon on the order stated in the agenda. in item 6, it's 54956 -- sorry, starting in 7, it's 54957.1. and the sheet i printed up is in bold, prior to holding any closed session the item to be held in closed session. no. 6 probably won't be covered, you will be talking with your attorney whether or not you are in litigation. and further down in the next session because it refers to 57957.1. in the first sentence... and to

enter as amicus carae, this is your litmus test to determine if you are eligible to enter into litigation or not. that further references 59957.9. in the last sentence, litigation shall pend if any circumstances exist. and a litigation of any party initially formally. we wouldn't know that because we don't about what the item is b and we don't know what would happen during the closed session. in section "c" of the same section, if the section is closed pursuant to the above section i stated. the body shall state the title or specific litigation to be

discussed [buzzer] none of that is... >> good evening, commissioners, i am hope johnson. good to see you again, i am the immediate past chair of the sunshine ordinance task force. two things, i want to echo the comments of the earlier speaker of the minutes not available online as an attachment. those were pretty significant hearings, there are a number of people that would like an opportunity to read them before you approve them. and second thing, i don't know if this is an appropriate time to address this. a number of us feel as mr. grossman stated, while the task force is unable to meet through no fault of its own.

it's difficult for them to participate in your regulations. but if you choose to go forward, could you please provide some comments to the public of how you will handle public comment on the points. there are maybe 36 decision points. and there are a number of issues we have with them. just as an example. there is one section that says you will impose a statute of limitations. and we don't know where that authority comes from. there are a number of things we would like to address, but wouldn't be able to do it in one sitting. it would be wonderful if you give guidance on how you will handle that. >> next item on the agenda -- sorry. i wasn't sure if you were waiting for the next item. >> wasn't sure if you are ready, thank you, i am peter, member of

the libraries commission. and as usual members have given wonderful comments and notes. and i would add to mr. grossman's comments, not only has the sunshine ordinance been able to meet. and neither have the subcommittees which are to do follow-up on prior matters and decisions and so on. the sunshine task force has it knee -- shot in the knees and unable to function any way whatsoever for the public. and i would agree with prior speakers and say that the agenda item which i would have more to say on, particularly with specifics. should strongly, you should consider postponing action. it's a little dismaying to come

into the room and find 12 items i counted on the table. and not one single one appears to be listed as an explanatory document. now are you telling me between the time that the agenda was posted and these materials were provided to the members of your commission and the public. there was nothing available at the time? this agenda went out. you are mandated to show what the explanatory documents are that have been distributed to your body. and to do so on the agenda. otherwise there is absolutely no way for anyone to know that there are documents available. and have been documents available. and thanks very much an immediate disclosure we sent was promptly answered and provided through your office. and i appreciate that. but to not have that on your

agenda is to violate the law. whereas to make it difficult for yourself and the public to know there are documents available at all. i did want to say something that i will mention briefly. that you are dealing with serious issues here. particularly in general with the sunshine ordinance and its enforcement. these are not just petty things that somebody didn't give someone a document [buzzer] these things are crimes against democracy itself. these are crimes against the whole way in which we expect our government to function. and for the press to function. and so these are very serious and should be considered very seriously. and in general if you hear what i say, i am in favor of strengthening rather than

weakening sunshine. thank you. >> good evening, members of the commission and members of the community. both in this room and in san francisco. i watched the ethics commission meeting final hearing on 9-1-1 and i was stunned there was no court reporter. all the way through the mirkarimi hearings there has been a court reporter. there is no way to reference transcripts on sfgtv, we know that is not a court reporter. and i was stunned that i couldn't find the minutes and

whether they were in april or may. i counted seven or eight or nine or 10 meetings on minutes. that were approved at once. and i had no way to read them. i am a disabled person and representing the disabled community. and damn it all, when we can't read this stuff and running them out of a job. and elected with 10,000 more votes than ed lee. i can't believe this, this is a misdemeanor, you are committing criminal misdemeanors, shame on you. i told this to scott weiner, this is grounds for recall for the brown act on may 24 of 2011. and there were violations on may 24 of 2011. the building they lived in is a parking lot and sold illegally. hundreds and thousands of

dollars of public property for private gain. i don't know if the purchaser is a contributor to mayor lee. because at that time he wasn't running for office. remember, run, ed, run. and no violation of the consortium laws, right mr. st. croix. and now a head member of the campaign is supervisor alogi. shame on her. this is incredible of what is going on in san francisco. and i am sorry i didn't prepare my comments in advance. >> good afternoon. my name is dana buller.

i am new to this commission. what i know i get from newspapers or reports from people who are watching videos of things that happened. i am concerned because i think that the -- any actions you might contemplate today might should be held off because of the -- i have to jump back to the situation that i think preceded the dismissal of the sunshine task force members. i believe they were dismissed because they criticized the

members of the board who were responsible for an action that involved a friend of mine, cathy link. when she spoke out of order at the relevant board of supervisors meeting. she was forcibly removed unjustifiably. she was held out -- she then came back in the room to get her backpack. but that's when she had her arm twisted behind her back. forced out of room. handcuffed and held downstairs here for half an hour. and had the good fortune of being spoken for chair hennessey's assistant. who i can't think of their name now, otherwise would be taken downtown. the persons in charge of that

meeting should have seen to it that the bailiffs or who the officials are called. would not have acted in that way. and at any rate, that puts this commission in the position of acting on a matter that involves that. that resulted in the task force not being in session for now [buzzer] i don't know how many months. but you need their advice to make the decisions on the matters that are in front of you. and it's all, i think, a very big mess. and i felt the need to speak up because a responsible citizen who was here because of the park merced eviction that was going to happen to her after living 25 years. was upset [buzzer] and broke a rule. not violently. and i think that behavior is --

>> good evening, david pillpal, nice to be back again. i want to make a comment about the minutes, not the minutes but the statements said. and i am sorry that i didn't follow the circumstances during the summer. and the chair stated documents of individuals not a party of the matter will not be included in the record. perhaps at this meeting or thereafter chair person hur can explain that. the way that i read the charter

session, the proceedings before the commission were to be compiled and transmitted to the board. and it did not suggest to me there were specific parties to the action that was a public matter before the commission. so i don't exactly see a basis for excluding material s submitted by the commission by parties or nonparties. it seems everything in that proceeding should be submitted in the record of the board. perhaps if you have a different view, that is my only point. i am sure we will be talking in a few minutes. >> next item on the agenda is consideration of draft amendments to the commission regulations. governing the handling of sunshine ordinance task force referrals. would like to introduce this matter?

>> as the commission knows, we have been trying to affect new regulations to somewhat expedite the process for handling sunshine complaints. and having gone back and forth with proposals and advice from the task force, the amount of time that we have not actually completed any work on this. has grown sort of lengthy. and in view of the fact that the task force has not met recently, and we are not sure when it's going to meet again. the staff feels that time is more of the essence and we should move these forward to move some cases that are stalled here. having said that. the sections are broken down into six sets of decision

points. that's i think -- sorry. actually six. there are multiple decision points on 1-4. and 1-5 and a single at 6. so the staff memo and the proposed changes are in front of you. these were posted as part of the agenda on the website. since last thursday. so i am not sure why anyone would think they didn't have access to them. and so i propose that we would do, discuss all decision points one. and then vote on those. have a discussion on decision points two and vote on those and

so on. >> okay, i think that sounds reasonable. and just as a further preface to this. this was a result of what i thought was a productive meeting with the task force in april. where we hashed out the structure of this document. and i think this document is certainly meant to reflect what came out of those discussions. the notion that the task force hasn't had input into this i think is inaccurate. the task force at the time, which was a very experienced group, was an equal participant in putting this together. i appreciate the efforts of the task force in that regard. and see familiar faces from that meeting, and am glad you are here. like mr. st. croix said there are a number of decision points.

and it makes sense to handle them in six segments. i appreciate the concern that with 36 decision points we are not able to handle them one at a time. i do have some comments on the first section. >> mrs. studley. >> i have two questions across the decision point and then a comment about the timing. this is a very practical implementation type of question. but i think it slices across a number of these. if an elected official or department head and also an employee who is not a department head are respondents in a

matter. it would just help me to know if we would have two procedures using the two different meth methodologies or they would combine. my thought is because the burden is different, we would have two proceedings. and i wanted to ask whether we thought about that. >> are you talking about several two different individuals? one of whom is department head, for example, and one whom is a public employee? >> exactly. >> my understanding is that it's different proceedings. is that right, mr. chatfield? >> the way they are drafted now, yes. the standard is different for a department head or elected official. they are separated in two different